Политико-правовые взгляды Алексея Алексеевича Борового (Анархо-гуманизм)
The article discusses the political and legal views of Alexey Borovoy, a prominent Russian anarchist theoretician of the early 20th century. His philosophy, which represents an original system of views on social structure, is discussed in the context of the accepted classifications of the anarchist movements taking into account the historical and cultural development. The author describes the preconditions and genesis of Borovoy’s unique philosophy which demonstrates that his position, despite its closeness to the individualist anarchism, cannot be confined to a single scientific category. In his analysis of Borovoy’s views, the author gives a detailed review of Borovoy’s self-criticism of anarchism, mainly based on the opposition of prevailing contemporary anti-state theories. Borovoy applied this critical approach to representatives of the European and American individualist anarchism, in reconsidering Bakunin’s “seditious” theory and in his sceptical analysis of Kropotkin’s doctrine. Apart from the ideologies, the scientist hotly criticized the “state structure” and institutional political forms. Accordingly, the article focuses on the issue of parliamentary system as an institution which, according to Borovoy, instead of being a venue for competition of national or public interests, is limited to rival ambitions of few most active population groups. The article also considers the role and essence of the law within the system of Borovoy’s views. The author gives a detailed analysis of the anarchist theory developed by Borovoy, the evolution of his views and their connection with the key events and philosophic movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The resulting conclusion is that Borovoy’s philosophy remains highly relevant and his theories on the state and the law are of great scientific importance. The anarchist theoretician has made a notable contribution to the legacy of political and legal thought.
The Working Paper examines the peculiarities of the Russian model of corporate governance and control in the banking sector. The study relies upon theoretical as well as applied research of corporate governance in Russian commercial banks featuring different forms of ownership. We focus on real interests of all stakeholders, namely bank and stock market regulators, bank owners, investors, top managers and other insiders. The Anglo-American concept of corporate governance, based on agency theory and implying outside investors’ control over banks through stock market, is found to bear limited relevance. We suggest some ways of overcoming the gap between formal institutions of governance and the real life.
This book is about twenty-year's experience of privatization in different countries including Russia. The book also includes sestematozation of academic views at the problems of state failures and effectiveness of the state owership.
The purpose of this paper is to carefully assess the size of public sector within the Russian banking industry. We identify and classify at least 78 state-influenced banks. For the state-owned banks, we distinguish between those that are majority-owned by federal executive authorities or Central Bank of Russia, by sub-federal (regional and municipal) authorities, by state-owned enterprises and banks, and by "state corporations". We estimate their combined market share to have reached 56% of total assets by July 1, 2009. Banks indirectly owned by public capital are the fastest-growing group. Concentration is increasing within the public sector of the industry, with the top five state-controlled banking groups in possession of over 49% of assets. We observe a crowding out and erosion of domestic private capital, whose market share is shrinking from year to year. Several of the largest state-owned banks now constitute a de facto intermediate tier at the core of the banking system. We argue that the direction of ownership change in Russian banking is different from that in CEE countries.
In this article the author attempts to explain the events occurring in the country taking into account the specificity of the Ukrainian political culture. From the point of view of the author, a key player in the Ukrainian revolution in 2014 was the Ukrainian society itself, and any attempt to comment the situation of modern Ukraine, first of all, should take into account civil conditions of the society itself. Qualitative state of civil society in Ukraine outrun the quality of the ruling elite, which inevitably provokes new confrontations and conflicts.
The article examines the problems of delegation of public powers of authority to self-regulated organizations: public powers of authority which may be delegated, spheres of state administration, where delegation of powers is not allowed, validity of control over realization of delegated powers in all cases of such delegation and responsibility of the state for the acts of private persons who exercise public powers of authority.
The paper proposes a political and legal approach to conceptualizing modern democratic state as law-governed, social and secular. It defines legal, institutional, and socio-political characteristics of law-governed, social, and secular state.
This paper uses the banking industry case to show that the boundaries of public property in Russia are blurred. A messy state withdrawal in 1990s left publicly funded assets beyond direct reach of official state bodies. While we identify no less than 50 state-owned banks in a broad sense, the federal government and regional authorities directly control just 4 and 12 institutions, respectively. 31 banks are indirectly state-owned, and their combined share of state-owned banks’ total assets grew from 11% to over a quarter between 2001 and 2010. The state continues to bear financial responsibility for indirectly owned banks, while it does not benefit properly from their activity through dividends nor capitalization nor policy lending. Such banks tend to act as quasi private institutions with weak corporate governance. Influential insiders (top-managers, current and former civil servants) and cronies extract their rent from control over financial flows and occasional appropriation of parts of bank equity.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/